Monday, July 27, 2009

It all seems simple enough when we look at the basic definition of a Kit and a BOM (Bill of Materials) in Dynamics GP.

A Kit is a group of items grouped at the time of sale

A BOM is a group of items assembled in to a finished good prior to sale

Simple enough, right? I normally tell people that a Kit is a SALES concept, while a BOM is an INVENTORY concept. A Kit is pulled at the time you sell it, a BOM is something that happens before the Item exists to be sold (before it is in Inventory).

Simple as it may seem, this is frequent subject of debate in discovery sessions and even among myself and coworkers, as both of these functions can be useful in different situations, leading us to use them in non-traditional ways. This week, I was part of one of those discussions regarding which feature was most appropriate for the situation. And then later this week I had another series of emails with another client debating the same thing. Practically speaking, they both sell Kits. However, they currently use BOM functionality and take advantage of some of the benefits of BOMs that support their business requirements (e.g., control over components, serial number linking, etc). However, they are also subject to the negative aspects of BOMs as well (e.g., less visibility to components for reporting, need for prior assembly, etc). So, what to do?

Well, it seems to come down to which one is the BEST fit given the requirements. So I like to break it down in to the pros and cons of each.

Bill of Materials (BOM)Pros:

Control over what is included in the BOM, avoiding substitutions that could affect currency amount pricing

Ability to serialize the top level of the BOM, and link back the component serial numbers

Ability to track kits that are sometimes pre-assembled (grouped together for quicker picking/packing/shipping) during slow periods

Quantities tracked at finished good level (this could be a Pro or a Con, depending on your needs)

Cons:

Have to assemble prior to sale (unless you look at the Blue Moon add on for SOP to BOM linking)

No flexibility on sales transaction to manipulate configuration/components

Less visibility to the components that make up the item being sold, specifically when dealing with serial numbered components (yes, there is visibility, just not as much as with a kit...my subjective opinion)

Packing slips, picking tickets, and other documents show finished good only (not components)

Difficulty if the return of a component is allowed, since the component is not listed on invoice

Not technically "assembled" , so no need to enter a separate transaction to assembly the Kit

Packing Slips, Picking Tickets, and other documents can print the Kit item or the Kit item including components

All quantities tracked at component level

High visibility to components sold (in my opinion, since the components are available, including serial numbers, on the document itself)

Ability to base Cost of Goods Sold account on the Kit or the Kit components

Cons

Only has ability to serialize the components, not the top level Kit

No ability to track pre-assembled quantities

Lack of control over changes made during data entry, including substitutions which should impact currency pricing

In my mind, there is no "right" answer, and one method is not necessarily better than the other. But, one method may very well meet the specific client requirements better. And, of course, there are plenty of companies that use both (in a clearly delineated way). So the rule of thumb that I try to use is to make sure that the requirements and process are discussed thoroughly, and that the client understands the pros and cons of each approach.

Please share your own thoughts about the pros and cons of Kits and BOMs, I would love to update this post with any additional comments :)

Friday, July 24, 2009

I tend to think that I am the sort of curious person who comes up with creative solutions to complicated problems. And in that way, I am somewhat proud of my troubleshooting abilities. Give me some time, peace, and quiet and I can figure out an issue through my powerful logic and reasoning capabilities--if you didn't catch the sarcasm in that statement, it was dripping with it :)

Today, I came across one of those issues that had me stumped. I assumed it had to be a problem report, after all I couldn't figure it out (again, sarcasm here). So here was the issue...

Client has used project accounting since 1/1/2009, there has been no change to their fiscal period setup

I checked the results in the PA01304 and there are records, but no balances at all

I checked the actual project data in GP, and there are detail transactions and project balances but no periodic balances

I searched the knowledge base on PartnerSource

No luck

Tried PA check links

Tried more PA reconciles

Tried in other companies, same results

Tried on my system, different results

Hmmm

So, I started a case, knowing that there have been past issues with the reconciles and thinking that maybe there was a known issue I was not finding in my search. Maybe, it's a service pack issue but I really wanted to avoid having to apply service packs just to get the data we needed. And, maybe, if I am honest with myself, I was being a bit lazy about it all.

So Brady at Microsoft has me check the period setup table for project accounting entries, select * from SY40100 where SERIES = 7. And, lo and behold, it returns nothing for project for the year 2009. So, he has me go in to Fiscal Period Setup (Tools>>Setup>>Company>>Fiscal Periods) click Calculate and Save to create the records.

I run the reconciles again, and I have data! I had faith the periodic data would return, because the detail was still there but for it to be such a simple fix was both good and bad. Good because it was quick to resolve, bad because I didn't get there myself :)

So I thought I would share this little nugget with you, just in case you run across this specific issue. And even if you don't, maybe it will remind you of the fact that most issues have simple causes and resolutions...it's just a matter of finding them.

Monday, July 20, 2009

A longtime client of ours wanted an online expense report system. Of course, I trotted out the normal list of third party products as well as eExpense from Concur. They had already been through a demo of eExpense with their payroll provider and had experienced, how shall I say it, sticker shock. The conversation went something like this...

Me: eExpense is a really great product, lots of functionality.Client: Yeah, but we really just need a basic product with basic functionality. And the price tag just is not realistic for our need, we can't justify it.Me: Let me see what else I can find that might be a compromise.

I did some searching and found most of the other third parties fall in about the same general price range. Some were a bit cheaper, but still had monthly subscription costs. So what to do? Then, I started to think creatively. The client already owned Project Accounting, and used it in one of their companies. They did not need to capture expenses by project, but...

Why not implement PS Time and Expense with some basic project setup, and use it to meet their needs? Now, this client was not on Business Ready Licensing, but if they were the savings would be even better! Bottom line is that in a little over two days of consulting time, and with less than $2000 in licensing costs for PS time and expense with user licenses, they have an expense reporting system.

We did a quick configuration of project accounting, and documented the setup of projects and cost categories (which will be the bulk of the additional setup they may expand in the future). The trick was to keep it simple, and not worry about full blown training on project accounting which was not needed. And the interesting part is that the simplicity is what the client likes (which is sometimes a complaint among full project accounting users).

Just thought I would share this as a reminder (one that I need from time to time) that the solution to a complex issue may lay right under your nose, and that sometimes simple is best. I think we as consultants inadvertently lean towards the "coolest" or the most functional solution. But we must remember that the ultimate goal is to meet the client's current needs and anticipate their future needs but not overstate or oversell them.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

So, every once in a while, you stumble across an old quality report referenced in a knowledge base article. Usually I look at it, see it was resolved with a service pack to version 6, or 5.5, and I think "oh, well, that's not the problem". But today taught me that sometimes old quality reports will shed some light on a current situation.

So, here is the scoop. A client emails me asking why they see duplicate records in the RM30501 (Commission History table). They are paying commissions when invoice is posted (not when invoice paid). They see something like this in the table:

Each entry has its own sequence number. So I do some testing. I enter an invoice, post it, void it, and see if I can come up with the same entries in the RM30501. No luck. So I told the client I needed to take a look on their system. We poke around for a bit, chasing one wild hair after another with no luck.

And then I start searching randomly in the knowledge base and I find an old article referencing an issue on version 6 that was resolved with a service pack. In the scenario they gave, if a payment was voided that was greater than the invoice amount, it would lead to negative commissions appearing on the commission report even if commissions where supposed to be paid when the invoice was posted (not when invoice was paid). Not quite the issue that started this, but promising enough. So here is what I tested:

1. Enter invoice in SOP and post2. Pay invoice with payment greater than invoice amount (so a portion of the payment is unapplied) and post3. Move invoice to history using Paid Transaction Removal (this step will move the commision record from the RM10501 to the RM30501)4. Transfer commissions to mark the commission as paid5. Void the payment recorded (this step will move the commission record back from the RM30501 to the RM10501, but more importantly this is where two additional records are created for the commission in the RM10501- one positive, one negative, so the net is correct but the detail is not)6. Transfer commissions again, this time a negative commission will appear (even though we are paying commissions when posted not paid, so the voiding of an invoice should not matter)7. Print Reports>>Sales>>Commission>>Commission Dist by Salesperson and you will see all three transactions for commissions: the original plus the two erroneous entries created by the void

Strange, huh? The commission distribution report is not a huge issue since it nets correctly, although it is troublesome that the detail is incorrect. A bigger issue is the transfer commissions journal, since that incorrectly shows a negative commission transferred and is often used as an entry list for paying commissions from payroll or payables.

Anyway, Microsoft is able to reproduce the issue, so we'll see what resolution they provide. I am a bit curious if the quality report came back after being resolved, which makes me wish I had a version 8 install to test on as well. I will definitely update this blog with any additional news. In the meantime, you may want to monitor closely if you use the transfer commissions journal to pay commissions. And definitely share any stories you have of long lost quality reports rearing their ugly heads :) I will share any posts I get.